Gravity is the comparison of four states: the Energy state, the Mass state, the Distance state and the Time state.

The dimensions that compose the universe are not “curled up” they are all visible to us every day.

Einstein thought the fields were unipolar making them circular, however experiment emphasizes the fields have two poles making them elliptical.

The cosmological constant is simply another four space making the incorporation of dark matter and dark energy graceful.

Why are physicists so tied up in knots over such a simple concept?

Click the image to enlarge it.

where d is distance and e is events.

This model gives you twelve dimensions and all of the dimensions are visible every day, they are not concealed or “wrapped up” at all.

I do not consider this equation perfect, but I believe I am on the right track.

What the above equation describes is a toroidal torus, or a klein bottle.

Consequently, the Einstein Field Equation describes a regular klein bottle, while the Czerepak field equation describes an irregular klein bottle. What is special about the klein bottle is it only has one side. This would mean the Universe although in constant flux is eternal and singular. There was no bang and there will be no crunch just continual cycling through states.

The only other consideration is that the elliptical paths, should be replaced with spiral paths. This would make the klein bottle recursive. How many recursions there are may be limited to the seven states identified by the System International Units: luminosity, temperature, time, distance, mass, current and molarity all of these reducing to distances.

First, I have been thinking about color. It would be possible to have only two types of triangles: black and white with black outline. The additional two shades are not essential, but are added to emphasize subordinancy.

As for the directionality of the triangles, we are actually looking at the planar faces of geometric figures, geometry not directionality. I agree, this would have to be learned.

Each icon represents a step in a progression from one state to another. In working on this I see a pattern:

1. energy: radiance

2. energy-time: heat

3. time: time

4. time-distance: speed (but not included)

5. space: distance

6. space-current: mass

7. current: soft current

8. phase: molarity: current-energy

I think the System International people have missed the brass ring. I know I am just as educated and experienced as those French bureaucrats. Probably more so.

There is also a missing anthropological element to the Units:

8. phase: molarity: current-digit (redefined)

9. numbers: numeracy: digit

10. speech: literacy: digit-calit

11. money: hard currency: calit

12. people: populacy: calit-energy

Obviously, I have to extend my model to account for five more association types. I don’t believe that will be difficult as for example there are at least two more many:many associations I did not account for or properly assign to my model.

As this is a new representation, there will be serendipitous moments. This is one of them.

3-D thinking is not difficult once the structure is assembled. But I am finding assembling the structure requires many visits and revisits to the basics, and the experts are not as expert as they make out.

Definitions of design thinking

Design thinking can be described as a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.

On reflection this is a narrow description that focuses on design thinking’s role within business. The next sentence that I wrote.“….design thinking converts need into demand” , which I borrowed from Peter Drucker, broadens things out a bit but still assumes an economic motivation.

I am grappling with two questions as I think about this.

1. Is there a general definition of design thinking?

2. Is it useful to have one?

I think Tim has something very good here and suggest that the following would be a further breakdown of his classification:

Viable: Business

How Much: Quality

How Many: Quanitity

Feasible: Technology

What: Material

How: Process

Desirable: Human

Why: Goal

Who: People

Obviously, if you have been following my blog, you can see the same pattern appearing and reappearing as we explore other’s concepts. The six interrogatives continue to reassert themselves. However, I think I finally nailed one more aspect on the head. I hate to say it, but it came to me in a dream about working on a programming project:

Reliable:

Where: Location

When: Timing

Quantity and Quality are two aspects of design/system thinking that are continually overlooked by academics and specialists, but not business people.

Interestingly enough this perspective is not new. Clayton M. Christensen in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma discusses a four part model that fits nicely with this:

Availability

Compatibility

Reliability

Cost

I consider, Clayton’s the most empirical ordering. Consequently, I would like to mesh Tim’s, Clayton’s and my perspective into the following:

Feasibility: Technology

How

What

Compatibility: Personality

Why

Who

Availability: Market

Where

When

Viability: Business

How Much

How Many

Now, looking at this I am reminded of Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Tipping Point, and it adds the following character to the model:

Feasability: Mavin

How: Processes

What: Materials

Compatibility: Connector

Why: Goals

Who: People

Availability: Salesman

Where: Locations

When: Schedules

Viability: Customer

How Much: Costs

How Many: Units

Universe: A Multi-Dimensional Medium

Let’s do a thought experiment. I want to take design thinking and abstract it to a system.

Imagine that there are no solids, liquids, gases or plasmas or particles. That the Universe is a fluid medium swirling between equilibrium and non-equilibrium in multiple dimensions. What we perceive to be solid, liquid, gas or plasma are not states, but intersections of dimensions that describe interdimensional vortices. Energy is the intensity of a vortice. Mass is a vortice of a set of dimensions. Light is a vortice of a set of dimensions. All of the particles are vortices of sets of dimensions. Each influence the other based upon which dimensions they are composed of.

R. Buckminster Fuller clearly states in his work that we should perceive the systems as finite four dimensional spheres.

Everything we perceive are combinations of these vortice states. The states are +/- vortice yaw, +/- vortice pitch, +/- vortice roll.

If any vortice is spiraling toward you it is positive, if any vortice is spiraling away from you it is negative. By definition, no vortice can be stationary with respect to you.

There are only eight fundamental vortices: How, What, Why, Who, When, Where, How Much, How Many.

This gives us the following eight vortice, four state table:

Take the time to look at the terms defining each of the white cells in the table. Each row is the addition of a dimensional vortice. For example: Each additional “when” vortice is another separate clock. Each additional “where” vortice is another separate radius. All of them are factors in a system or a design.

And even this representation is inaccurate. If we consider fractal geometry and chaos theory, there are no points, no straight lines, no arcs, no planes, no circles, no polygons, no polyhedrons, no spheres, only vortices that are above, within or below our range of perception. Space cannot be filled with any geometric shape. Everything is composed of vortices–spirals.

We have to abandon the flat world, flat space models we currently cling to. The world and the universe are not infinite planes. The world is a finite island of non-equilibrium in a predominantly equilibrium universe.